Submission Instructions
Now that you have read about your topic a bit and considered multiple perspectives related to it, you are ready to put together your Module 1 assignment.
The following components should appear together in one document in your submission. Use the
Milestone 1 Template
to assemble your finished product:
- The topic you selected (it must be one of the choices in this list).
- One source from the Excelsior College Library on your topic. (This does not need to be in APA format but must include the title, date, author, and a link to the source. Your source cannot be the associated research starter article linked in the chart above. It cannot come from a Google Search.)
To find a source: Go to the Excelsior College Library (Links to an external site.) and use the OneSearch tool on the homepage by putting in a few keywords associated with your topic. View the OneSearch: Basic Search Video (Links to an external site.) and the Library searching tips and tricks (Links to an external site.) to learn more about this searching process.
- At least three interesting or troubling facts about the topic that comes from your source listed above. (These should be written in your own words and not copy/pasted directly from the source.)
- At least three questions you have about this topic and how it might impact the future of our society. (You do not need to have answers to these questions yet, just pose the questions for now. Aim for “why” questions rather than “what”. These are the questions that will drive your research in the next few weeks and help you to find the most useful sources.)
- A short paragraph (approx. 200-250 words) reflecting on this process. (Consider the following as you reflect: why did you choose this topic? Do you think you have any biases toward a certain perspective on it? How will you try to minimize your own biases as you conduct research? Did you find it difficult to find a source or come up with questions about your topic or to think about how this topic relates to the future?)
C A S UA LT I E S O F
COLLEGE DEBT
What Data Show and Experts Say
About Who Defaults and Why
JUNE 2019
PAGE 2 CASUALTIES OF COLLEGE DEBT: WHAT DATA SHOW AND EXPERTS SAY ABOUT WHO DEFAULTS AND WHY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS) is an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization
working to make higher education more available and affordable for people of all backgrounds. To learn
more about TICAS, visit ticas.org and follow us on Twitter at @TICAS_org.
Casualties of College Debt: What Data Show and Experts Say About Who Defaults and Why was written by
Lindsay Ahlman with substantial contributions from Veronica Gonzalez.
We would like to thank the many experts and students who were generous in sharing their knowledge and
experience with us.
We are grateful to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation whose support made this project possible. The views
expressed in this paper are solely those of TICAS and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders.
This report can be reproduced, with attribution, within the terms of this Creative Commons license:
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/.
THE INSTITUTE FOR COLLEGE ACCESS & SUCCESS PAGE 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Intoduction
On the Brink: Who Is Delinquent But Not (Yet) In Default?
Over the Edge: What Happens When a Borrower Defaults, and Who Defaults?
Expert Perspectives on Who Defaults and Why
Life Gets in the Way: The Role of Other Financial Hardships
Caught in the Web: The Role Overly Complex Systems and Processes Play in Default
Missing Tools in the Toolbox: Gaps in Information and Support
Recommendations
Conclusion
4
5
6
10
10
12
13
16
19
13
14
PAGE 4 CASUALTIES OF COLLEGE DEBT: WHAT DATA SHOW AND EXPERTS SAY ABOUT WHO DEFAULTS AND WHY
IntroductIon
Each year, about seven million students invest in their futures by taking out federal loans to go to
college.1 For most, these loans will prove a worthwhile investment. Borrowing enables millions of
students to enroll in college and to complete more quickly. The returns to college remain high, and
most students successfully repay their federal loans.
However, there are clear and urgent signs of repayment distress for student borrowers who – while not
the majority of all borrowers – still number in the millions. A quarter (24%) of all Direct Loan borrowers
were either delinquent or in default at the end of 2018,2 and in the last 12 months alone, over a million
Direct Loan borrowers entered default.3
Certain groups of students are particularly likely to struggle with student debt. Low-income students,
Black students, and students earning four-year degrees at for-profit colleges are more likely to borrow
and to borrow more than their peers.4 They are also more likely to default.5 Older borrowers, those
who attend part-time and attend non-selective schools, and who leave school without a certificate
or degree are more likely default, even though they often have small loans.6 Furthermore, the
possibility that as many as 70 percent of Black borrowers may eventually default is deeply troubling
and underscores the urgent need to reduce default to address persistent racial inequities in higher
education outcomes.7
Student loan defaulters are not the only borrowers feeling the effects of their debt long after college.
Some borrowers are successfully repaying their loans but at the cost of delayed homeownership and
less ability to save for retirement. Others remain in good standing on their loans but see the amount
that they owe continue to grow because their income-based payments are smaller than their accruing
interest. However, this report focuses specifically on the worst student loan outcome, shared by
millions of students: default.
Borrowers default on a loan when they fall at least 270 days behind on their loan payments, and the
self-defeating, sometimes overly punitive, and long-lasting consequences of default make it a source
of vital concern for policymakers focused on improving both higher education attainment and the
economy.
For decades, policymakers have sought to make student loans more affordable by reducing interest
rates, creating new repayment plans, and allowing students to defer repayment. While the existing
consumer protections for federal student loans remain vital, we must do more to ensure students
who borrow do not end up worse off for pursuing their education and career goals. Meanwhile, while
available data can shed light on the scope and scale of delinquency and default, we know too little
about the lived experience of default, including how and why borrowers fall into default, how they get
out of default, and both the immediate and long-term impact of default.
To understand better the experience of student loan default, and what policy changes are most likely
to help borrowers, we sought the perspectives of student loan policy experts, researchers, servicers,
and the legal aid practitioners helping borrowers resolve default. We also looked to the latest federal
data on delinquency and default to shed needed light on who defaulted borrowers are, and spoke
with several borrowers who have defaulted to learn more about the lived experience of default.8
THE INSTITUTE FOR COLLEGE ACCESS & SUCCESS PAGE 5
This report explores the key themes of who defaults and why that emerged across over 20 in-depth
conversations and lifts up the lived experience of default though voices of borrowers themselves.
Borrowers who default on their student debt often struggle with severe overall financial hardship
at the same time that they are expected to navigate a complex federal loan repayment system
with limited resources, imperfect information, and inadequate assistance. The data also clearly
show that borrowers who default are largely the same group of students who entered school
with disproportionate barriers to college success, further underscoring not only the devastating
consequences of default for individuals but also its consequences for state and national goals to
increase educational attainment and close equity gaps.
Following an exploration of the data and a summary of key insights from experts, we make
recommendations for immediate policy improvements to reduce financial hardship by streamlining
and strengthening income-based repayment, and identify priority areas for further study and action
to reduce default.
on the BrInk: Who Is delInquent But not (Yet) In default?
Missing a student loan payment is an early sign of borrower distress. Borrowers become delinquent
immediately after missing a single payment, and remain delinquent until they either pay the past
due amount or make alternative repayment arrangements (for example, by placing loans in a
temporary repayment relief). Borrowers who are delinquent for more than 90 days will see their
credit scores negatively impacted, and after 270 days of failing to make required payments, a
borrower defaults.
U.S. Department of Education data
on the state of the federal loan
program portfolio provide some
insight into who struggles to repay
their loans and are at greatest risk
of default. Among borrowers at
least 31 days delinquent at the end
of 2018, almost half (45%) are 35
years or older.9 Delinquency is also
associated with where a borrower
went to school: those who attended
for-profit schools are more likely than
their peers at public or non-profit
schools to be delinquent.10
PAGE 6 CASUALTIES OF COLLEGE DEBT: WHAT DATA SHOW AND EXPERTS SAY ABOUT WHO DEFAULTS AND WHY
Leaving school without a credential
is also associated with higher rates
of delinquency. Over half (54%)
of borrowers at least 31 days
delinquent never completed their
program.11 As shown in the graph
to the right, borrowers who leave
school without a credential are over
twice as likely to be delinquent.12
By providing the option of monthly
payments calculated as a share of
income rather than a fixed amount,
income-driven repayment (IDR)
plans play a critical role in reducing
a borrower’s risk of delinquency.
Borrowers repaying Direct Loans in
a standard 10-year repayment plan
are more than four times as likely to be 91 or more days delinquent than borrowers enrolled in
the two most recently offered IDR plans (13% vs. 3%).13 Research on the causal effects of IDR
enrollment has shown that borrowers enrolled in an IDR plan are less likely to be delinquent,
and they pay down more of their loan each month than those in fixed plans with similar level of
engagement with their servicers. This is true even though monthly payments can be smaller in
IDR than in a fixed repayment plan because they are less likely to miss payments.14
over the edge: What happens When a BorroWer defaults, and Who defaults?
Default is the most devastating possible student loan outcome. It adds significant costs to a
loan and can create compounding financial hardship. Upon entering default, the entire unpaid
balance (including accumulated interest) becomes due. To collect unpaid debt, the federal
government can garnish a defaulted borrower’s wages, as well as withhold tax refunds and
other federal benefit payments.
“Having them take my tax refund last year has thrown me into the red every single
month since then because that was my catch-up fund. That was my money that was
actually going to pay my landlady and enable me to get ahead a tiny bit. I have
nothing in retirement, and probably never will. This system perpetuates itself.”
Collections fees are also charged, and can be in excess of what a borrower would have
otherwise paid had they not defaulted. Those costs can also vary depending on how a
borrower resolves the defaulted loan; prior research estimates that the collection costs for a
$7,000 defaulted loan balance can range from $0 to over $2,000 depending on the type of
THE INSTITUTE FOR COLLEGE ACCESS & SUCCESS PAGE 7
default exit.15 None of these amounts are clearly based on actual collection costs incurred by the
federal government.
A defaulted student loan also adversely effects a borrower’s credit score, making other financial
investments either impossible or more costly, and can jeopardize both living arrangements and
employment.
“I have awful credit. That’s the worst. People think you’re a deadbeat.”
In addition, a range of other punitive consequences make returning to school or securing
employment more difficult. These include the loss of eligibility of future federal financial aid,
the inability of defaulted borrowers to secure academic transcripts from their prior schools, and
ineligibility for certain professional licenses in more than a dozen states.16 And beyond the tangible
consequences of default, the experience can be psychological devastating.
“I was in a constant driven panic for six years. You can’t move, you literally cannot func-
tion.”
“They were making it so that I could not think beyond my pool of debt. It was inter-
fering with my ability to function in my
world.”
Available data do not shed light on how
often borrowers experience each of these
consequences, and their impact on borrowers
in financial distress is unavailable. However,
data from a nationally representative survey of
students who began college in 2004 shed some
light on who defaulted borrowers are.17 The
majority (65%) of borrowers who default within
12 years of starting college entered school
with incomes below 200 percent of the federal
poverty level for their family size.18 Just over
half (51%) have dependent children. Defaulted
borrowers are two and half times more likely to
be single parents (20% vs 8%), twice as likely
as non-defaulters to have been independent
students (40% vs 20%), and one and a half times
more likely to be first-generation students (47%
vs 30%). Defaulted borrowers are also over two
and half times more likely to have attended a
for-profit school than non-defaulters (45% vs
17%). And consistent with a growing body of
PAGE 8 CASUALTIES OF COLLEGE DEBT: WHAT DATA SHOW AND EXPERTS SAY ABOUT WHO DEFAULTS AND WHY
research identifying the disproportionate risk of default facing Black borrowers,19 defaulters are also
over twice as likely as non-defaulters to be Black (33% vs 14%).
Perhaps counterintuitively, borrowers with higher debts are not at a higher risk of default.20 Over half
(52%) of borrowers who default within 12 years of entering college have undergraduate federal loans
totaling less than $10,000. In fact, borrowers with less than $10,000 in federal undergraduate loans are
about 50 percent more likely to experience default than those with total debt of at least $10,000 (34%
vs 23%).21
Higher debt is correlated with the length of time in school and degree completion, including and
up to graduate and professional degrees. While these borrowers may have higher debt, they also
receive higher financial returns to their education that enable repayment.22 Meanwhile, the relationship
between lower debt amounts and default is in large part related to the fact that borrowers who leave
school before completing a program spend less time in school, and therefore borrow less. They may
leave with less debt, but doing so without a completed credential increases their risk of default two-
fold.23 Half (49%) of defaulted borrowers never complete their program, and many experts we spoke to
pointed to a lack of credential being a major factor in default.
The relationship between completion
and default is symptomatic of a cycle
of hardship facing students who, from
the outset, face the most barriers to
success. Specific groups of students
are both less likely to complete
their program and more likely to
experience default. For example, just
43 percent of low-income students
receiving a Pell Grant earn a certificate
or degree within five years, compared
to 57 percent of their higher-income
peers. At the same time, Pell Grant
recipients are almost twice as likely
to borrow and over three times
more likely to default within 12 years
than non-Pell recipient peers (79%
versus 44% and 35% versus 11%
respectively).
Students who are single parents, Black, first generation, independent, and who have family incomes
below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) are all less likely than their peers to graduate and
more likely to default. Many of these students are also more likely to borrow.
THE INSTITUTE FOR COLLEGE ACCESS & SUCCESS PAGE 9
While failure to complete is clearly broadly linked with an increased risk of default, for some
groups of borrowers the likelihood of default can remain relatively high even when they finish their
certificate or degree. For example, Pell Grant recipients and Black students who complete their
programs are both more likely to default than their non-Pell recipient and non-Black peers who do
not complete. And students who earned a certificate or degree from a for-profit college are more
likely to default than students who dropped out of a public of non-profit college.25
Some analysts have suggested that borrower regret and resentment (for example, as a result
of earning a low quality credential that falls short of providing a path to securing employment)
may contribute to an unwillingness to repay related loans.26 While students who were misled
into enrolling in or otherwise mistreated by their college are entitled to have their federal loans
discharged, some experts with whom we spoke suggest that other students – particularly those
who leave school with debt but no degree – may similarly regret borrowing or even their decision
to go to school in the first place.
“I never would have gone to college, because I’m in no better place. In fact,
financially and emotionally, I’m in a worse place now than when I started school.”
Other experts we spoke with believe that, while borrowers may hate feeling like they did not
realize the expected returns from their investment, resentment doesn’t factor into any decision to
repay a loan or not. Rather, borrowers keep repaying to the extent they have resources to do so.
BorroWIng, completIon, and default among vulneraBle students24
Pell Grant
Recipient Single Parent Black First Generation Independent
Family Income
Below 200% FPL
YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO
% Borrowed 79% 44% 66%* 63% 77% 61% 62%* 64% 57% 66% 68% 59%
% Completed in
5 Years 43% 57% 27% 52% 37% 52% 41% 55% 33% 56% 41% 56%
% Defaulted in
12 Years 35% 11% 50% 25% 48% 23% 38% 22% 44% 22% 41% 17%
PAGE 10 CASUALTIES OF COLLEGE DEBT: WHAT DATA SHOW AND EXPERTS SAY ABOUT WHO DEFAULTS AND WHY
272829
expert perspectIves on Who defaults and WhY
Life Gets in the Way: The Role of Other Financial Hardships
The reality that life and other financial hardships get in the way of being able to repay student loans
was a consistent theme in our conversations with student loan policy experts, researchers, servicers,
and the legal aid advocates who work with student borrowers. According to these experts, those in
default are almost always facing other challenges, such as drops in income, health issues, or other
forms of debt that could also be in collection and further straining resources. Experts tell us that it
is common for defaulted borrowers to be receiving some form of public assistance. Some defaulted
borrowers are living paycheck to paycheck, while others have no stable source of income at all. Our
conversations with defaulted borrowers also underscored that other financial hardships were a key
driver in why they defaulted.
The federal student loan program attempts to address some of these problems. Federal loan
borrowers in financial distress may be eligible for temporary repayment relief through deferment and
forbearance options. Deferments due to economic hardship or unemployment are not uncommon
among all borrowers, but a higher share of defaulted borrowers use this option: One in four of
borrowers who default have a prior deferment due to economic hardship or unemployment, compared
to one in five non-defaulted borrowers.30 Defaulted borrowers are also more likely to have ever used
forbearance (69% of borrowers who defaulted, compared to 52% of borrowers who did not).31
BORROWER DEFENSE: A LEGAL REMEDY FOR DEFRAUDED BORROWERS
The “borrower defense to repayment” rule protects borrowers who were cheated by
their colleges. Created in 1994, the rule authorizes the Department of Education to
forgive Direct Loans that were connected to illegal actions of their colleges, such as
fraud or breach of contract.
The rule was little-noticed and rarely used for years. In 2015, a national chain of for-
profit colleges, Corinthian Colleges, abruptly closed in the wake of findings that
they had mislead prospective students on job placement rates. On the basis of these
findings, the Department developed a process for processing and adjudicating these
claims and finalized a new regulation setting out a more clear and transparent process
for borrowers to assert a defense to repayment. Since 2015, nearly 200,000 borrowers
from Corinthian and other colleges have applied for relief.27
Under a new administration, the Department of Education has moved slowly to process
these claims, and there are 158,000 applications under review as of December 31,
2018.28 It is also midstream in writing new regulations that will apply to new student
loans which would, according to the Department’s own estimates, provide relief to a
very small share of students cheated by their colleges.29
THE INSTITUTE FOR COLLEGE ACCESS & SUCCESS PAGE 11
IDR plans also provide a critical safety net for borrowers facing financial hardship by calculating
monthly payments as a share of annual income. However, the formula for calculating payments
cannot account for unexpected or ongoing expenses that exceed the basic living allowance
provided to everyone in IDR. Additionally, monthly payments in IDR do not take into account
amounts owed on private education loans.
We do not have enough information or data to understand fully why borrowers may default even
when the temporary relief options offered by deferment or forbearance and longer-term options
of reduced monthly payment amounts offered by IDR are available. However, some of the experts
we spoke with emphasized that distressed borrowers may be struggling to pay for food, the next
month’s rent, or gas or car repairs needed to get them to work. The borrowers we spoke to also
highlighted the hardship of facing these tradeoffs.
“Student loans were lower priority than other things. I needed shelter and food. And
to take care of my kids.”
“What really pushed me is just extreme poverty. My husband owned a business and he
had a heart attack, and we lost our house to foreclosure. I had medical issues, he had
medical issues.”
“I was losing my house, I couldn’t find work…I didn’t have money to get in my car to
go get gas…I was getting six phone calls every day on my house. And then they want
me to mess with the student loans, I felt like I was in a war zone. It was insane.”
“What are they going to do with me? I don’t have anything left. I have no assets. I
don’t have a job, I have no income.”
Facing resources already stretched thin, we heard from both borrowers and those that assist
them that the stress of loan payment obligations on top of other sources and symptoms of
financial distress can be overwhelming and demoralizing. As student debt has become the norm,
researchers and others have paid increasing attention to the psychological consequences of
persistent student debt.32 It is not only borrowers facing immediate and critical needs who struggle
with the psychological impact of student debt. For some, monthly student loan payments come
at the expense of making other investments like home purchases or starting a business, creating
long-term distress and discouragement. We also heard from experts who work with borrowers that
watching a loan balance grow while making required payments (a state of ‘negative amortization’
that results from monthly payment requirements that fall short of covering monthly interest accrual)
can leave borrowers feeling hopeless, anxious, guilty, and ashamed. These psychological impacts
associated with repaying student debt are not easily quantifiable, but they are familiar to experts
and also echo findings from previous borrower focus groups.33
While federal repayment policy attempts to address some of these concerns, even the best-
designed policy can face implementation issues that undermine good intentions. Discharging
federal student debt that remains after a set period of repayment (20 or 25 years in current IDR
plans) is meant to help allay concerns about ballooning loan balances that persistently low-income
PAGE 12 CASUALTIES OF COLLEGE DEBT: WHAT DATA SHOW AND EXPERTS SAY ABOUT WHO DEFAULTS AND WHY
borrowers may face in IDR. However, conversations with experts who work with struggling borrowers
suggest that two or more decades can feel out of reach for many borrowers. Furthermore, any amount
forgiven for borrowers enrolled in IDR will be taxed as earned income, which can lead to a costly tax
bill (described by one expert as a “tax bomb”) at the moment borrowers are intended to experience
relief.34 Meanwhile, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program offers a shorter path to
forgiveness for qualified borrowers, and amounts forgiven through PSLF are not subject to taxation.
Yet widely visible implementation problems– and fears of the program being eliminated – continue
to bring stress and fear to borrowers hoping to receive relief after making the required ten years of
payments.35
Caught in the Web: The Role Overly Complex Systems and Processes Play in Default36
The sheer complexity of the system borrowers must navigate to repay their debt is hard to manage,
especially for those also dealing more generally with unpredictable expenses or insufficient
income. Borrowers have an array of repayment plan options, each of which have variable eligibility
requirements and varying benefits.37 In addition to three options providing fixed monthly payments,
there are five IDR plans. These plans provide flexible monthly payments based on income and family
size, and provide forgiveness of any debt remaining after 20 or 25 years of repayment. IDR provides
a critical safety net for struggling borrowers, and the Department of Education provides repayment
selection tools to help borrowers identify a qualifying plan that will provide the lowest monthly
payment. However, the array of similar but somewhat different plans adds unnecessary complexity for
borrowers and servicers.
Many of our conversations also highlighted the requirement that borrowers annually recertify their
income in order to remain enrolled in IDR as especially problematic. Missing this deadline can result
in a sudden and unaffordable spike in payments, and previous Department data shows over half of
borrowers miss their annual recertification deadline.38
Deferment and forbearance options are also complex. Experts agree that these options are a short-
term term benefit that borrowers should only use for discrete, temporary hardships because of their
PRIVATE LOANS
More than a third (38%) of borrowers who default within 12 years have a private (non-
federal) loan.36 Private loans are one of the riskiest ways to pay for college and offer
fewer consumer protections than federal student loans. Payments on private education
loans are not factored into the calculation of ‘affordable’ monthly federal loan payments
based on income and therefore are layered on top of that obligation. Carrying multiple
types of loans, each with different options for relief and degrees of flexibility during
periods of financial hardship, and multiple servicers compound all of the challenges
facing struggling borrowers.
THE INSTITUTE FOR COLLEGE ACCESS & SUCCESS PAGE 13
temporary nature and associated interest costs. Depending on the type of loan, deferment may or
may not pause interest accrual; most students will see interest continue to accrue for some loans
but not others. There are also a number of types of forbearance, some of which servicers have
discretion in granting. All loans in forbearance accrue interest and, depending on the type of loan,
that interest may or may not capitalize at the end of the forbearance period.39
The complexity of student loan repayment continues at default. After defaulting, borrowers
seeking a way out face a maze of options for getting their loans back to good standing, each
of which come with different requirements, costs, and benefits.40 Defaulted borrowers can
resolve their loans by rehabilitating the loan through making nine consecutive payment amounts
established by their collector, by consolidating them into a new Direct Consolidated Loan, or by
paying their debt in full. Borrowers whose wages are being garnished as a result of default are not
eligible for consolidation, and a record of default will remain on their credit history. Prior research
suggests as many as 70 percent of defaulted borrowers exit default within five years.41 However,
the variable options and corresponding costs and consequences of different paths to exiting
default can make the process difficult to navigate without assistance.
“It shouldn’t be so difficult that a person needs legal assistance like I got. I am lucky that
it was pro bono…I’m not sure that I could have afforded that. I am sure the legal billing
would have been more than what I got back.”
Missing Tools in the Toolbox: Gaps in Information and Support
Another common theme we heard in our conversations with borrowers, servicers, and practitioners,
was that borrowers are navigating the complex repayment system with both imperfect information
and inadequate support.
All federal student loan borrowers are currently required to complete loan counseling at only two
points in time: when they first take out a loan (“entrance counseling”) and when they graduate
or leave school (“exit counseling”). While better information is not a solution to inadequate
financial resources, the current federal student loan counseling requirements fall short of providing
borrowers with adequately timely information that is needed to prepare students for successful
repayment. As designed, exit counseling may be particularly poorly timed, as well as inconsistently
delivered. Students who leave school without completing their program– and who are therefore
at higher risk of default – may be the least likely to have recently received the information about
repayment they need.
While timelier loan counseling can help ensure borrowers have the information they need,
these interventions are no substitute for responsive, just-in-time support that may be needed
well into repayment when financial hardship arises. Student loan servicers are best positioned
to provide this support, but even well intentioned efforts may fall flat if borrowers are otherwise
overwhelmed, fear servicers rather than see them as a source of potential support, or cannot
rely on the information servicers provide. Distrust of servicers may be legitimately rooted in prior
bad experiences, such as incorrectly processed paperwork or communication of insufficient or
inaccurate information.42
PAGE 14 CASUALTIES OF COLLEGE DEBT: WHAT DATA SHOW AND EXPERTS SAY ABOUT WHO DEFAULTS AND WHY
Struggling borrowers often find themselves granted consecutive forbearances by their servicer,
even if enrollment in IDR would be a better option for them. Servicers responding to request for
repayment relief may or may not adequately or consistently inform borrowers of their options as well
as the relative pros and cons of deferment, forbearance, and enrollment in IDR. Even in cases where
servicers do provide this information, facing multiple options, each with different consequences, may
impede borrowers’ ability to fully understand the tradeoffs of each and make an informed decision.
A confusing system is challenging for borrowers, and the complexity also creates challenges for the
servicers who are tasked with helping borrowers navigate the process.
Servicers can also place borrowers’ loans into different statuses without their knowledge. Because
deferment, forbearance, and IDR may all mean no payments are due in the short term, borrowers may
not learn until much later that their loans were put into forbearance or deferment and that they would
have been better served by IDR.
“They put me repeatedly into forbearance or into…deferment… without me asking.”
“They actually said I didn’t have to make any payments. But then I find out … they were
just postponing those payments”
Prior conversations that are perceived as disrespectful can also make borrowers less likely seek help
from servicers.
“They would speak to me and their demeanor was just horrible… It was like, ‘You should
be able to pay this. You were in a master’s program’… But he wasn’t the only one who
made comments like that. There were other people that said…‘How come you can’t pay?
…You people know you can’t afford these loans before you take them out.’… Even the
manager said, ‘Why you people always think something is free?’
RETURNING TO DEFAULT
After exiting default, many “re-defaulters” soon return to it. A 2016 report from
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau estimated that one in three rehabilitated
student loan borrowers will return to default within just two years, in large part due to
inadequate servicing and punitive collections practices.43 As of September 30, 2017,
nearly one in 10 Direct Loan borrowers who entered default during the preceding 12
months had defaulted on a loan that was previously rehabilitated.44 Better information
about why and how this subset of borrowers re-enter default after having successfully
navigated out of it might shed important light on the most stubborn barriers to reducing
and eliminating default.
THE INSTITUTE FOR COLLEGE ACCESS & SUCCESS PAGE 15
Some experts we spoke with also pointed out that a student loan servicer may also be just one of
many people reaching out to borrowers about outstanding debt – a distressed borrower may also
have a house in foreclosure or be receiving regular calls from other debt collectors. Such negative
interactions can create a compounding stress and fear unrelated to their student loan but which
make it more difficult to trust or engage with a student loan servicer. Borrowers may also be so
overwhelmed that they choose to avoid responding to any outreach they received.
“After a while, you just start throwing the letters in a drawer because it’s something
else you can’t really deal with… I’m smart enough to know that student loans don’t go
away, but there is no money to pay, so I guess I buried my head in the sand”
While greater clarity alone would not pay the bills, it certainly would make it easier to navigate
repayment. We heard from borrowers and those working with them that interest accumulation can
be confusing and discouraging, especially for borrowers who unexpectedly see a balance due that
exceeds what they initially borrowed. Some borrowers do not understand which repayment plan
they are enrolled in, their temporary repayment relief options, their type and amount of loans, or
even who can help them answer these questions.
Servicers shared with us frustration that borrowers are difficult and sometimes impossible to
locate, a symptom of other feedback we received from experts that distressed borrowers are living
turbulent lives, may not have a stable residence, or may otherwise ignore servicer outreach in the
face of persistent calls from other debt collectors. Servicers we talked to also acknowledged that
that their compensation structure and incentives, designed and implemented by the Department
of Education, are not well aligned with the work they feel is required to adequately support
distressed borrowers, including more personalized and persistent outreach. On top of failing to
provide adequate incentives for positive support, the Department’s Office of Inspector General
furthermore identified that FSA’s existing incentives encourage noncompliance with Federal loan
servicing requirements.45
PAGE 16 CASUALTIES OF COLLEGE DEBT: WHAT DATA SHOW AND EXPERTS SAY ABOUT WHO DEFAULTS AND WHY
recommendatIons
The clearest path to reducing the burden of student debt is reducing the need to borrow in the
first place, which requires significantly increasing the federal government’s cornerstone investment
in targeted need-based aid, the Pell Grant. The current maximum grant covers the lowest share
of college costs in the program’s history, and grant recipients are both more likely to borrow
and to default than their higher income peers. Students attending for-profit schools also bear
disproportionate debt burdens and higher risks of default, and stronger college accountability is
needed to prevent low quality programs from routinely leaving students with unaffordable debts.
While Congress works toward these goals, policymakers can enact straightforward changes to simplify
repayment to reduce financial hardship and keep more borrowers out of default. Streamlining the
existing array of IDR plans into a single plan would significantly reduce the complexity of the student
loan repayment system. There is broad bipartisan agreement on the need to do so, and legislators
have introduced a number of specific proposals to simplify IDR.46 As Congress looks to create a single
IDR plan it must strengthen and better leverage IDR to reduce default, and prioritize protecting the
key features of IDR that help prevent default. To ensure all students have access to more timely and
relevant information about borrowing and repayment, Congress can also pass existing bipartisan
legislation that requires annual federal student loan counseling and robust consumer testing of the
Department’s online counseling tools.
MAKE IT EASIER TO ENROLL AND STAY ENROLLED IN IDR
Borrowers must currently submit verification of their family size and income to enroll in IDR and
continue doing so each year in order to keep making affordable payments based on income. Not only
do these requirements add complexity, they also increase the risk of default for borrowers who miss
their annual deadline to re-certify their income on time and see unaffordable spikes in their monthly
payment amounts as a result.
Existing bipartisan legislation in both the House (the SIMPLE Act) and Senate (the FAFSA Act)
would eliminate the requirement to annual recertify income by allowing borrowers to give consent
to the IRS to automatically share their income data with the Department of Education.47 Passing
this commonsense legislation would reduce both borrowers’ risk of default and the burdensome
paperwork requirements for servicers who track and process income certifications.
BETTER LEVERAGE IDR TO PREVENT DEFAULT BY AUTOMATICALLY ENROLLING DELINQUENT BORROWERS
While IDR is not the optimal repayment option for every borrower, it is always better than default.
And while IDR is not a guarantee against default, it reduces a financially distressed borrower’s risk of
delinquency by providing payments as a share of income rather than a fixed amount regardless of
available income. The bipartisan SIMPLE Act would automatically enroll borrowers who have not made
any payments in four months into IDR and would ensure that those at highest risk of default have
access to these protections.
THE INSTITUTE FOR COLLEGE ACCESS & SUCCESS PAGE 17
LIMIT IDR PAYMENTS AND REPAYMENT LENGTH TO NO MORE THAN 10 PERCENT OF INCOME OVER 20 YEARS
Given the intense financial pressures facing struggling borrowers who default, it is key that
Congress not introduce additional strain by extending the repayment periods currently available to
borrowers in IDR. Relief after 20 or 25 years of payments on one’s student debt is a light at the end
of a tunnel long enough that borrowers do not consider it a potential source of relief. Postponing
or eliminating this benefit would mean that borrowers who struggle the most with student debt
that has not paid off would face an even longer period of distress. Similarly, given the extent to
which distressed and defaulted borrowers persistently struggle to make ends meet at the same
time as fulfilling their income-based loan payment obligations, Congress should not increase the
share of income required for monthly payments in IDR above 10 percent.
To realize fully the economic and psychological benefits of debt forgiveness under IDR, it is also
imperative that Congress eliminate its taxation. Debt discharged after decades of responsible
payments does not create resources available to borrowers, and forcing borrowers to pay a
potentially large lump sum of taxes on forgiven debt can create an unaffordable tax that punishes
low-income Americans and which runs counter to the goal of providing forgiveness.
INTEREST ACCUMULATION IN IDR SHOULD BE RESTRAINED
IDR helps borrowers stay in good standing on their loans during periods of low or no income.
At the same time, this benefit can come with a painful tradeoff for many borrowers who have
persistently low earnings relative to their debt because their balances grow even as they make
their required monthly payments. Interest accumulation not only adds costs during repayment, but
it can be a disincentive to enroll in IDR even if the borrower would otherwise benefit.
The most recent IDR plan, the REPAYE plan created in 2015, caps the accrual of unpaid interest for
borrowers whose monthly payments are too low to cover interest growth. This interest cap both
reduces the amount of unpaid interest for borrowers in repayment whose balances continue to
climb – potentially helping them pay off their loans over the long-term – and reduces the amount
that may be forgiven if debt remains after 20 years of responsible payments.
GIVE STUDENTS TIMELY AND RELEVANT INFORMATION
Student loan counseling plays an important role in ensuring students have the information they
need to make borrowing decisions that both enable them to achieve their educational goals and
avoid delinquency and default. Enhanced and more frequent counseling may reduce students’
uncertainty about both their debt burden and options for relief should financial hardship arise
during repayment. Existing bipartisan legislation would provide students with key information, in a
more personalized and timely manner.48
PAGE 18 CASUALTIES OF COLLEGE DEBT: WHAT DATA SHOW AND EXPERTS SAY ABOUT WHO DEFAULTS AND WHY
An Agenda for Future Policy
While efforts to streamline and improve student loan repayment options remain vital, the fact
that over a million student loan borrowers enter default each year, even as consumer protections
like IDR are available, calls for a more ambitious set of solutions. Our conversations with experts
and borrowers, and analyses of the latest data on default and delinquency helped identify key
priorities for future work aimed at more deeply understanding how and why borrowers default
and supporting the development of holistic policy solutions to the systemic drivers of extreme
repayment hardship:
• Affordability of Payments in IDR: More work is needed to understand whether the current
IDR monthly payment calculation provides adequately affordable payments, particularly for
borrowers whose incomes are just over the amount protected to account for basic living
expenses (currently 150 percent of the poverty line, or about $19,000 for a single person).
Further work is also needed to identify the extent to which IDR is well suited to adequately
relieve the financial hardships of student loans for persistently vulnerable borrowers.
• Preventing Harm of Involuntary Payments: Given the significant non-student loan related
financial hardships defaulted borrowers also face, current involuntary payment mechanisms
for recovering defaulted loan balances may be counterproductive for the most vulnerable
borrowers. Policymakers should work to ensure that default consequences like tax refund and
social security offsets and other garnishments do not interfere with very low-income individuals’
ability to cover basic subsistence costs.
• Ensuring High Quality Servicing: Improving servicing is a critical aspect of improving student
loan repayment outcomes. Policymakers must ensure that the Department of Education’s
Federal Student Aid (FSA) office, which oversees student loan servicers, is adequately held
accountable for student loan repayment success. In turn, FSA must adequately hold servicers
accountable for failures to provide necessary information and accurately processes required
paperwork. Servicer oversight and compensation structures should be revisited to align with
incentives for borrower-centered service. The Center for American Progress has offered a
servicing reform agenda worthy of deeper consideration.49
• Simplification of Deferment and Forbearance: Because the current array of options for
temporary student loan payment relief can add complexity for servicers and confusion for
borrowers, policymakers should consider whether there are ways to consolidate available
options for temporarily suspending monthly payment requirements.
• The Ripple Effect of Default: More work is needed to understand and convey to policymakers
the long-term impacts that default has beyond the borrower’s own life. These impacts includes
consequences for a family and community, broader patterns of educational attainment and
inequality of economic opportunity, and economic growth.
“My son is afraid to go to school now, because he’s seen what’s it’s done
to me”
THE INSTITUTE FOR COLLEGE ACCESS & SUCCESS PAGE 19
conclusIon
Federal student loans provide millions of students with the opportunity to obtain a certificate or
degree they would otherwise not be able to pursue. While the debt incurred to cover the cost
of college enables borrowers to realize the economic benefits of higher education, student loan
borrowing is at the same time a heavy reality negatively impacting millions of current, former,
and future students. And while this burden can impact borrowers in different ways, default is the
categorically worst student loan outcome.
The latest federal data add more insight into the key themes that emerged from our conversations
with over 20 experts who shared their perspectives on who defaults and why. Many of the very
same students who are most vulnerable when they enter school, including Pell Grant recipients
and Black students, are also most vulnerable to default when they leave school. Compared to
borrowers who do not default, defaulted borrowers are also more likely to have left school prior
to completing their program, and to have attended a for-profit school. Our conversations with a
diverse group of experts highlight that borrowers who default face financially turbulent lives at
the same time as they confront a complex repayment system with too few financial resources,
inadequate information, and insufficient assistance.
As policymakers show increasing concern about student loan debt, more work is needed to
understand how default occurs and the impact it has, and to develop more effective, holistic
solutions to prevent this devastating outcome that undermines other crucial policy efforts to
close gaps in postsecondary attainment and increase economic mobility. As this work continues,
Congress can quickly take clear steps to simplify and improve repayment by streamlining the
current array of IDR plans in ways that preserve its key student-centered design features, and by
automatically enrolling distressed borrowers in that plan.
PAGE 20 CASUALTIES OF COLLEGE DEBT: WHAT DATA SHOW AND EXPERTS SAY ABOUT WHO DEFAULTS AND WHY
endnotes
1 Data from the U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid Data Center, “Aid Recipients Summary,” https://bit.ly/2MGL5wc. The number of
students with federal loans refers to the number of unique undergraduates with subsidized or unsubsidized loans in the 2016-17 award year. The most
recent “Aid Recipients Summary” file from the Department of Education notes these data are current as of October 2018 but not final. The file also
includes information for subsequent award years, but student loan volume data tend to get substantially revised after subsequent releases.
2 Calculations by TICAS using data from the U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid Data Center, “Portfolio by Delinquency Status (DL,
FFEL, ED-Held FFEL, ED-Owned),” https://bit.ly/2IDdpKW, “Direct Loan and Federal Family Education Loan Portfolio by Loan Status,” https://bit.
ly/1O6zgrW, and “Federal Student Aid Portfolio Summary” https://bit.ly/2hvfiOd. Accessed May 13, 2019. Figures represent Direct Loan borrowers
whose loans are more than 30 days delinquent, including those whose loans have gone into default. Recipient counts are based at the loan level. As a
result, recipients may be counted multiple times across varying loan statuses.
3 Calculations by TICAS using data from the U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid Data Center, “Direct Loans Entering Default,” https://
bit.ly/2Rs7lbK. Accessed May 5, 2019. Figures represent the number of Direct Loan borrowers whose loans entered default from January 1, 2018
through December 31, 2018. Borrowers who entered default during multiple quarters in the same 12-month period are counted more than once.
4 TICAS. April 2019. Quick Facts about Student Debt. https://bit.ly/2WqxMQ5.
5 TICAS. April 2018. Students at Greatest Risk of Loan Default. https://bit.ly/2rb8doK.
6 Looney, Adam and Constantine Yannelis. Fall, 2015. “A Crisis in Student Loans? How Changes in the Characteristics of Borrowers and the Institutions
They Attended Contributed to Rising Loan Defaults.” Brookings Institution. https://brook.gs/2w7QuAA.
7 Scott-Clayton, Judith. January 10, 2018. “The Looming Student Loan Default Crisis Is Worse than We Thought.” Brookings Institution. https://brook.
gs/2EanLBr.
8 We worked with Housing and Economic Rights Advocates (HERA), a California statewide, not-for-profit legal service and advocacy organization that
provides free services to low-income Californians with economic and financial concerns to identify student loan borrowers among their clientele who
were in or had defaulted on their federal student debt. We offered participating borrowers a $20 Amazon gift card in exchange for participating in a
one hour, recorded phone interview with TICAS about their experiences with student debt and default.
9 Calculations by TICAS using data from the U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid Center, “Direct Loan Portfolio by Delinquency Status
and Age,” https://bit.ly/2WAITe9. Accessed May 14, 2019. Figures represent share of Direct Loan borrowers who are 31 or more days delinquent by
age category as of December 31, 2018.
10 Calculations by TICAS using data from the U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid Center, “Direct Loan Portfolio by Delinquency Status
and School Type,” https://bit.ly/31mRDDs. Accessed May 16, 2019. Figures represent the share of Direct Loan borrowers by school type whose loans
are 31 or 91 or more days delinquent. Borrowers who received loans from more than one school type are counted more than once.
11 Calculations by TICAS using data from the U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid Data Center, “Direct Loan Portfolio by Delinquency
Status and Enrollment,” https://bit.ly/2KGvdHs. Accessed May 14, 2019. Figures represent the share of Direct Loan borrowers who are 31 or more days
delinquent and never completed their program.
12 Calculations by TICAS using data from the U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid Data Center, “Direct Loan Portfolio by Delinquency
Status and Enrollment,” https://bit.ly/2KGvdHs. Accessed May 14, 2019. Figures represent the share of Direct Loan borrowers by completion status
who are 31 or 91 or more days delinquent.
13 Calculations by TICAS using data from the U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid Data Center, “Direct Loan Portfolio by Delinquency
Status and Repayment Plan,” https://bit.ly/2R2k1Gg. Accessed May 15, 2019. Figures represent the share of borrowers with Direct Loans by repayment
plan whose loans are 91 or more days delinquent, not including defaulted loans that have been transferred to DMCS, as of December 31, 2018. The
two most recent IDR plans are REPAYE and PAYE. Borrowers repaying loans in multiple plans are counted more than once.
14 Herbst, Daniel. April 27, 2018. “Liquidity and Insurance in Student Loan Contracts: The Effects of Income-Driven Repayment on Default and
Consumption.” Princeton University. https://bit.ly/2WB78sT.
15 Delisle, Jason, Preston Cooper, and Cody Christensen. 2018. “Federal Student Loan Defaults: What Happens After Borrowers Default and Why.”
American Enterprise Institute, https://bit.ly/2WCqcqG.
THE INSTITUTE FOR COLLEGE ACCESS & SUCCESS PAGE 21
16 TICAS. October 2018. The Self-Defeating Consequences of Student Loan Default. https://bit.ly/2PThD2A.
17 These data come from calculations by TICAS using the U.S. Department of Education’s Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS),
which follows undergraduate students who enrolled in college for the first time in 2003-04 and tracks their academic outcomes through 2008-09 and
whether they defaulted on their federal student loans within 12 years of entering college. Calculations only include those who borrowed federal loans
and represent the share of non-defaulters and defaulters. Students with dependent children refers to whether a respondent had any children under the
age of 25 that he/she supported financially in 2009. Single parents include those who identified as such in 2003-04. Students are independent if they
are considered financially independent for the purposes of federal financial aid eligibility in 2003-04; for example, a student is independent if they are
24 years or older. Students are first-generation if their parents did not complete high school or if they had a high school diploma or equivalent as their
highest level of education. All differences cited are statistically significant.
18 The federal poverty line is determined by a student’s dependency status, family size, and total income in 2002. In 2019, 200% of the federal poverty
line for a single individual is just under $25,000.
19 TICAS. April 2018. Students at Greatest Risk of Loan Default. https://bit.ly/2rb8doK; Judith Scott-Clayton. January 10, 2018. “The Looming Student
Loan Default Crisis Is Worse than We Thought.” Brookings Institution. https://brook.gs/2EanLBr; Ben Miller. October 16, 2017. “New Federal Data
Show a Student Loan Crisis for African American Borrowers.” Center for American Progress. https://ampr.gs/2ip5ZxD.
20 White House Council of Economic Advisers. July 2016. “Investing in Higher Education. Benefits, Challenges and the State of Student Debt.” Figure
27. https://bit.ly/2Uu2jfX.
21 Calculations by TICAS using the U.S. Department of Education’s Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS). Figures include the
share of those who borrowed undergraduate federal loans and defaulted within 12 years of beginning postsecondary education.
22 Baum, Sandy, Victoria Lee, and Alexandra Tilsley. May 2, 2019. “Which Households Hold the Most Student Debt?” The Urban Institute. https://
urbn.is/2KGQkcL.
23 Calculations by TICAS using the U.S. Department of Education’s Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS). Students who started
college in 2003-04 and completed a degree/certificate at their first institution by 2009 are less likely to have defaulted within 12 years than those who
dropped out by 2009 (11% vs. 23%). This analysis excludes students who were still enrolled at their first institution or had transferred to another college
by 2009.
24 Calculations by TICAS using the U.S. Department of Education’s Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS). The share of those
who borrowed includes those who borrowed a federal loan in the 12 years following initial enrollment in college. The share of those who completed in
5 years includes students who started college in 2003-04 and completed a degree/certificate at their first institution by 2009. The share of those who
defaulted in 12 years includes borrowers only. The Pell Grant recipient variable includes those who ever received the grant within 12 years of initially
enrolling in college. Single parents include those who identified as such in 2003-04. Students are first-generation if their parents did not complete
high school or if they had a high school diploma or equivalent as their highest level of education. Students are independent if they are financially
independent for the purposes of federal financial aid eligibility in 2003-04; for example, a student is independent if they are 24 years or older. Family
income below 200% of the federal poverty line is determined by a student’s dependency status, family size and total income in 2002. Unless otherwise
noted, all differences are statistically significant.
25 TICAS. April 2018. Students at the Greatest Risk of Loan Default. https://bit.ly/2rb8doK.
26 Holt, Alexander and Jason Delisle. March 11, 2015. Why Student Loans Are Different. New America. http://bit.ly/2X6mMMi.
27 U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid Data Center, “Borrower Defense to Repayment Loan Forgiveness Data,” December 2018
report. https://bit.ly/2Itf2dW.
28 Ibid.
29 TICAS. August 30, 2018. “TICAS Detailed Comments on Borrower Defense to Repayment Rule.” https://bit.ly/2WvrZce. Under the Department’s
primary proposal, less than 2.0 percent of loan volume held by borrowers whose colleges committed misrepresentation would be discharged. Under
the Department’s alternative proposal, less than 6.0 percent of loan volume held by borrowers whose colleges committed misrepresentation would be
discharged.
30 Calculations by TICAS using the U.S. Department of Education’s Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS). Figures include share
of defaulters and non-defaulters who ever had a forbearance on a federal loan in 12 years.
31 Calculations by TICAS using the U.S. Department of Education’s Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS). Figures include share
PAGE 22 CASUALTIES OF COLLEGE DEBT: WHAT DATA SHOW AND EXPERTS SAY ABOUT WHO DEFAULTS AND WHY
of defaulters and non-defaulters who report economic hardship as a reason for ever having federal loan deferment in 12 years.
32 See, for example Gillian B. White. February 2, 2015. “The Mental and Physical Toll of Student Loans.” The Atlantic. https://bit.ly/2R2aaQV.
33 FDR Group. February 23, 2015. Taking Out and Repaying Student Loans: A Report on Focus Group With Struggling Student Loan Borrowers.
https://bit.ly/2Wpm5JC.
34 For examples of tax liabilities for forgiven debt, see TICAS. November 8, 2017. “Tax Consequences of Loan Discharges for Borrowers in Income-
Driven Repayment Plans.” https://bit.ly/2Hcu3zX.
35 Douglas-Gabriel, Danielle. December 19, 2018. “Watchdog group investigates federal loan forgiveness program for public servants.” The
Washington Post. https://wapo.st/2KGme96; Andrew Kreighbaum. September 27, 2018. “Barriers to Loan Forgiveness.” Inside Higher Ed. https://bit.
ly/31iWuFX.
36 Calculations by TICAS using the U.S. Department of Education’s Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS). Figure includes the
share of borrowers who default within 12 years that had a private (non-federal) loan for undergraduate education.
37 Federal Student Aid (FSA). 2019. “Repayment Plans.” https://bit.ly/1BBhqcd.
38 U.S. Department of Education. “Sample Data on IDR Recertification Rates for ED-Held Loans.” Shared on April 1, 2015 at the second negotiated
rulemaking session. http://bit.ly/2pTKFDl. More recent Congressional statements suggests that this number may have declined, but no public data
are available to confirm this, see Sen. Lamar Alexander, December 20, 2018. “Senate Passes Alexander, Whitehouse, Murray, Gardner Bill That Allows
Families to Answer 22 FAFSA Questions With Just One Click.” https://bit.ly/2WIfe37.
39 Federal Student Aid (FSA). 2019. “Deferment and Forbearance.” https://bit.ly/2by061G.
40 Federal Student Aid (FSA). 2019. “Getting Out of Default.” http://bit.ly/2xL0uBG.
41 Delisle, Jason, Preston Cooper, and Cody Christensen. 2018. “Federal Student Loan Defaults: What Happens After Borrowers Default and Why.”
American Enterprise Institute. https://bit.ly/2WCqcqG.
42 The Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General 2019 report on servicer noncompliance with requirements for federal loan
servicing documented widespread instances of compliance failures for which the Department did not adequately hold servicers accountable. Such
noncompliance failures included not sufficiently informing borrowers of available repayment options. See U.S. Department of Education Office of
Inspector General. February 12, 2019. “Federal Student Aid: Additional Actions Needed to Mitigate the Risk of Servicer Noncompliance with for
Servicing Federally Held Student Loans.” https://bit.ly/2GpZfxR.
43 CFPB. October 17, 2016. “CFPB Projects that One-in-Three Rehabilitated Student Loan Borrowers Will Re-default Within Two Years.” https://bit.
ly/2pcfSno.
44 Calculations by TICAS using data from the U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid Data Center, “Direct Loans Entering Default,”
https://bit.ly/2Rs7lbK. Accessed May 5, 2019. Figures represent the share of all Direct Loan borrowers in default whose loans entered default a second
time from October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017. Borrowers who entered default during multiple quarters in the same 12-month period are counted
more than once. More recent data on the number of borrowers defaulting for at least the second time are not made available by the Department of
Education.
45 U.S. Department of Education Office of Inspector General. February 12, 2019. “Federal Student Aid: Additional Actions Needed to Mitigate the
Risk of Servicer Noncompliance with for Servicing Federally Held Student Loans.” https://bit.ly/2GpZfxR.
46 TICAS. April 30, 2019. “Plans to Streamline Income-Driven Repayment Show Both Divergence and Overlap.” https://bit.ly/2ZpDvrB.
47 Bonamici, Suzanne. July 24, 2018. “Bonamici Plays Key Role in Plan to Improve Student Loan System, Increase Higher Education Affordability and
Access.” https://bit.ly/2WsUSpn; Andrew Kreighbaum. December 21, 2018. “Senate Passes Bill to Streamline FAFSA.” Inside Higher Ed. https://bit.
ly/2SGZkQm.
48 Bonamici, Suzanne. April 8, 2019. “Bonamici, Guthrie Reintroduce Empowering Students through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act.” https://bit.
ly/2WsUSpn. The Know Before You Owe Federal Student Loan Act (S. 887), introduced by Senator Grassley with Senators Smith and Ernst, would also
require annual counseling.
49 Campbell, Colleen. March 7, 2019. “How Congress Can Fix Student Loan Repayment.” Center for American Progress. https://ampr.gs/2HB7gjk.
1212 Broadway, Suite 1100
Oakland, CA 94612
510.318.7900
110 Maryland Ave, NE Suite 201
Washington, D.C. 20002
202.223.6060
info@ticas.org
www.ticas.org
HectorRodriguez
IND301 Milestone 1 Template
1.
Topic selection (from list of choices in course): My topic choice is College Dept.
2. One source from the Excelsior College Library on your topic:
· Title:
College Debt: The science of global warming and our energy future
· Date: 2009
· Author: Mathez, E. A., & Smerdon, J. E.
· URL for the source: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=584697&site=eds-live&scope=site
Example of APA format (optional): Mathez, E. A., & Smerdon, J. E. (2009). Climate change: The science of global warming and our energy future. New York: Columbia University Press. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=584697&site=eds-live&scope=site
3. At least three interesting or troubling facts about the topic (in your own words) that come from your source listed above:
a. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, deforestation, and land use are the biggest contributors to climate change.
b. If we don’t change our global energy production and consumption patterns, global mean temperate could increase up to 9 degrees Fahrenheit by sometime in the 21st century.
c. Renewable energy sources (wind, solar, geothermal, and biofuels) are growing, but in 2005 they accounted for only 2.2% of electricity consumed.
4. At least three questions you have about this topic and how it might impact the future of our society:
a. Why is climate change occurring?
b. Why do scientists and policy makers differ in their perspectives on climate change?
c. Why are we not doing more to combat climate change?
d. How much will climate change impact the Earth in 100 years?
e. How do nations differ in their approaches to combating climate change?
5. A short paragraph (approx. 200–250 words) reflecting on this process.
Consider the following as you reflect: Why did you choose this topic? Do you think you have any biases toward a certain perspective on it? How will you try to minimize your own biases as you conduct research? Did you find it difficult to find a source or come up with facts and questions about your topic or to think about how this topic relates to the future?
I chose climate change because I am a Natural Sciences major and I thought it would be useful to learn more about it before it comes up in my other coursework. I think I am biased toward believing that climate change is a big problem in our society and that our politicians are not doing enough to address it. When I conduct research, I will look for sources that have differing perspectives on how severe climate change is as a problem, as well as sources that advocate different solutions to the problem. I will be mindful of sources that might be driven by an agenda, like those that might be funded by industries that contribute to climate change like fossil fuels. I did not find it difficult to come up with facts and questions about my topic because as a science-minded person I am curious about it. I found searching the library for a source to be very easy, however, there are a lot of books and articles about climate change, so the biggest challenge will be to narrow down my focus, so I am not overwhelmed by the sources. The book I found seems like a useful introduction to climate change, but it is from 2009 so the research may be too outdated. However, I did find it difficult to separate out my thinking about the current state of climate change versus the future of climate change. I think this is because they naturally impact one another, our inaction now may contribute to how bad climate change becomes in 10–100 years.
IND301Course Project – Milestone 1 Grading Rubric
Criteria A+ (100) A (95) B (85) C (75) D (65) F (55) F (0)
Possible Points: 20 20 19 17 15 13 11 0
Source Selection
and Information:
The work includes
author, title, date,
and a URL for one
source from the
Excelsior College
Library related to
the topic choice.
The selected
source from the
library is credible
and has clear
relevance to the
selected topic.
Information
about the source
is detailed,
accurate, and
complete.
The selected
source from
the library is
credible and
relevant to
the selected
topic.
Information
about the
source is
accurate and
complete.
The selected
source from
the library is
credible and
generally
relevant to
the selected
topic.
Information
about the
source is
complete.
The selected
source from the
library is not the
most relevant
(i.e., may be
outdated or not
clearly tied to the
topic) to the
selected topic.
Some of the
information
about the source
is provided.
The selected
source is not
from the library
or not credible.
Source has little
relevance to the
selected topic.
Little information
about the source
is provided.
The selected
source is not from
the library,
credible, or
relevant to the
selected topic.
Little to no
information about
the source is
provided.
The work
includes no
source or no
submission.
Possible Points: 20 20 19 17 15 13 11 0
Interesting/
Troubling Facts:
The work provides
3 or more
interesting/troubli
ng facts about the
topic choice from
the student’s
source choice.
The work
provides 3 or
more relevant,
significant, and
insightful facts
about the topic.
The work
provides 3
relevant,
interesting
facts about
the topic.
The work
provides 3
relevant facts
about the
topic.
The work
provides 3 facts
about the topic,
but at least 1 is
not appropriate,
relevant, or
correct.
The work
provides 3 facts,
but some of the
facts are not
appropriate,
relevant, or
correct.
The work provides
fewer than 3 facts,
or all of the facts
are unrelated to
the topic or
incorrect.
The work
includes no
facts or no
submission.
Possible Points: 20 20 19 17 15 13 11 0
Research
Questions:
The work provides
3 or more research
questions related
to the topic choice.
The work
provides 3 or
more research
questions that
are novel and
complex, open-
ended, and
relevant.
Questions
demonstrate a
The work
provides 3 or
more research
questions that
are open-
ended and
relevant.
Questions
demonstrate a
good
The work
provides 3
research
questions
that are
mostly open-
ended and
relevant.
Questions
demonstrate
The work
provides 3
research
questions, some
of which are
open-ended and
relevant. Some of
the questions
demonstrate an
The work
provides 3
research
questions, but
many are yes/no
questions or
irrelevant. Many
of the questions
demonstrate a
lack of
The work provides
fewer than 3
research
questions, or all of
the questions are
yes/no questions
or are irrelevant.
Questions
demonstrate a
lack of
The work
includes no
research
questions or
no
submission.
deep
understanding of
the topic.
understanding
of the topic.
an
understandin
g of the
topic.
understanding of
the topic.
understanding of
the topic.
understanding of
the topic.
Possible Points: 20 20 19 17 15 13 11 0
Reflection: The
work includes a
paragraph of 200–
250 words
reflecting on the
topic choice; the
student’s own
biases,
perspectives, and
opinions; and the
research-question
generation
process.
The work
includes a
paragraph with
insightful,
unique, and
cogent self-
reflection on the
research process
and the student’s
potential biases,
including specific
solutions and
examples for
minimizing these
biases.
The work
includes a
paragraph
with a
thoughtful,
cogent self-
reflection on
the research
process and
the student’s
potential
biases,
including
solutions for
minimizing
these biases.
The work
includes a
paragraph
with a
somewhat
thoughtful
self-
reflection on
the research
process and
the student’s
potential
biases,
including
some
solutions for
minimizing
these biases.
The work
includes a
paragraph with
an adequate self-
reflection on the
research process
and the student’s
potential biases,
with few or no
solutions for
minimizing these
biases.
The work
includes a
paragraph about
the research
process or the
student’s
potential biases
but is lacking in
any thoughtful
self-reflection or
solutions for
minimizing
biases.
The work includes
a paragraph that
fails to include any
self-reflection
about the
research process
or the student’s
potential biases
and potential
solutions.
The work
does not
contain a
reflection
paragraph or
no
submission.
Possible Points: 20 20 19 17 15 13 11 0
Writing Skills:
Grammar,
spelling, and
syntax are
appropriate for
college writing.
The work
contains no
errors in spelling
or grammar;
word choice
demonstrates a
deep
understanding of
the topic, always
using relevant
key terms
appropriately.
The work
contains no
errors in
spelling or
grammar;
word choice
demonstrates
a good
understanding
of the topic,
using relevant
terms
appropriately.
The work
contains a
few spelling
and/or
grammatical
errors; word
choice
demonstrate
s proficiency
on the topic
using
relevant
The work
contains a few
minor spelling
and grammatical
errors; word
choice
demonstrates
basic
understanding of
the topic,
sometimes using
relevant and
The work exhibits
consistently
poor spelling
and grammar;
word choice
demonstrates a
lack of
understanding of
the topic, often
using irrelevant
or inappropriate
terms.
The work exhibits
extremely poor
writing skills;
incorrect spelling
and grammar
limits the reader’s
ability to follow
ideas or thoughts.
Word choice
demonstrates a
lack of
understanding of
the topic, with
No
submission.
terms for the
most part.
appropriate
terms.
many irrelevant or
inappropriate
terms.